On causality and superluminal speeds.

[Robert Clark]

In some of the discussion about the recent measurements at CERN
suggesting a superluminal speed of the neutrino, the question was
raised about whether this means travel back in time. Some explanations
about how this measurement could be true without causality violations
involved things of the nature of traveling through wormholes or extra
dimensions. However, in point of fact superluminal speeds are fully
consistent with a classical physics explanation.
That explanation is that of a preferred frame. It is commonly thought
that Einsteins special theory disproved the existence of a preferred
frame. But actually what it provided was an explanation of
experimentally observed effects such as time dilation that did not
*require* a preferred frame. But the important thing that needs to be
kept in mind is that if superluminal speeds are possible then that
explanation is no longer viable. In that case then the preferred frame
explanation is required to explain time dilation. In this case time
time dilation and rates at which time passes are not relative but in
fact are absolute with respect to that preferred frame.
I discussed this in this previous post to sci.physics.relativity
copied below. This is from 10 years ago so some of the links to
articles I referenced expired, but you can find them by searching on
the articles titles.

Bob Clark


Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity, sci.astro, sci.math
From: rgcl...@my-deja.com (Robert Clark)
Date: 11 Jul 2001 19:26:32 -0700
Subject: Re : Are Neutrinos tachyons?

b...@galaxy.ucr.edu (John Baez) wrote in message

news: <9i8a1n$ej__BEGIN_MASK_n#9g02mG7!__...__END_MASK_i?a63jfAD
$z...@glue.ucr.edu> ...
> In article <3uqakt8021vp6mv3jbhhmkso9btf5lt...@4ax.com> ,
> Zed <b...@nowhere.don'tspam.me.com> wrote:
> > I've read that tachyonics are usually the sign that a ground state
> > of the vacuum has not correcly been identified. Would tachyonic
> > neutrinos mean that our universe is only metastable against vacuum
> > decay?
> Worse: unstable! A more lowbrow way of putting this is that the
> existence of tachyons would allow to create something like
> a perpetual motion machine. Tachyons can go faster than light,
> and anything going faster than light will look like it's going
> backwards in time when viewed in a suitably moving inertial
> reference frame.
> ...

An interesting question: is the reason why physicists continue to
say
that superluminal travel would require causality violations because
they are CERTAIN that the alternative of a preferred frame is not the
case or is it because it is simply not discussed as a possibility in
physics courses and textbooks?
In any case it seems to me those who are aware of it should at least
mention that it is an alternative possibility to the idea that
superluminal speeds imply travel back in time.
Note also that negative energy states are an inherent part of
quantum
field theory, and "Casimir regions" would be small areas where such
states are stable. Indeed the recent experimental confirmations of
the
Casimir effect suggest that the energy state of a Casimir region is
below the standard vacuum value and it is stable.
__________________________________________________________
From: Robert Clark (rgcl...@my-deja.com)
Subject: Re: Faster Than Light in our lifetime?
Newsgroups: sci.space.tech, sci.space.science
Date: 2001-06-04 22:45:41 PST
jth...@galileo.thp.univie.ac.at (Jonathan Thornburg) wrote in message
news:

<9f2kd7$40...@mach.thp.univie.ac.at> ...
> In article <9f1k2o$ok...@iac5.navix.net> ,
> Robert Miller <starg...@alltel.net> wrote:
> > What is the chance of FTL travel in our lifetime?
> Almost all physicists would say "very small".
> The problem is that even FTL *signalling* (never mind FTL travel)
> creates severe problems with causality: If you could send a signal
> faster than light, then by sending a suitable out-and-return pair of
> signals between two rapidly (but still slower-than-light) moving
> spaceships, you could arrange to have the return signal arrive back
> from its overall out-and-return journey *before* you sent it!
> ...

Actually it is known that faster than light speeds really would not
require causality violations. What it would require is a preferred
frame:
**************************************************
From: Robert Clark (rgcl...@my-deja.com)
Subject: Re: Ftl on the horizon???
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Date: 2000/06/08
In article <13989-393A9846...@storefull-158.iap.bryant.webtv.net> ,
jjI...@webtv.net (JJ) wrote:
> A friend sent me the article below It looks like ftl and time
> travel might be possible after all. Just think another example of "it
> can't be done" being done. Whats the next thing that can't be done going
> to be I wonder, the nay sayers still abound.
> THE SUNDAY TIMES: FOREIGN NEWS
> Address:http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2000/06/04/stifgnusa01007.html
> Changed:1:20 PM on Sunday, June 4, 2000
> jj

It has been known since at least the 1930's with the publication of
the German edition of Reichenbach's _The Philosophy of Space and
Time_
that superluminal signaling need not require causality violations.
This is because, as Reichenbach noted, it is a matter of convention
that
the *one-way* speed of light is a constant c. The experimental results
of
relativity may just as well be explained by assuming the speed of
light is slowed in one direction and correspondingly speeded-up in
the
other. This does not require travel back in time, but it would
require
a need for a preferred frame.
This is well known among researchers in the foundations of
relativity
but does not seem to have filtered down among physicists in general,
as indicated by the descriptions of these recent experiments:

physics : Faster than light
http://www.nature.com/nsu/000601/000601-5.html

Light Exceeds Its Own Speed Limit, or Does it?
http://www10.nytimes.com/library/national/science/053000sci-physics-
light.html

Eureka! Scientists break speed of light
http://www.sunday-
times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2000/06/04/stifgnusa01007.html

One of the few times I've seen a mainstream physicist comment that
superluminal signaling would require a preferred frame and not travel
back in time or causality violations was from CERN physicist
Alexander
Kusenko in discussing a theory that the explanation of the "solar
neutrino deficit" was due to a superluminal speed of neutrino:

"One objection is that if tachyons exist, they could be used for
faster-than-light communication, causing curious reversals of cause
and
effect. Rembielinski says this can be avoided, but only by abandoning
the "relativity principle", which requires that the laws of physics
look the same to all observers moving at a constant speed relative to
each other."
"Dumping the relativity principle means accepting that one frame in
the Universe is special," says Alexander Kusenko of CERN, the
European
particle physics laboratory in Geneva. "It's aesthetically
displeasing
and it makes physics messy." He suspects that the tritium experiments
indicate an imaginary mass for the neutrino only because of
experimental uncertainties."
Speed freaks
New Scientist, 16 August, 1997
http://www.newscientist.com/ns/970816/nneutrinos.html

I don't agree here that a preferred frame would necessarily make
physics more complicated. That presupposes that this preferred frame
would be difficult to detect. If arbitrarily high speeds could be
achieved, then it is possible that absolute simultaneity and absolute
time could also be determined. This might in fact lead to the
unification of physics that has so far been elusive.
The possibility of superluminal speeds, and the fact this implies a
preferred frame, has also been investigated by Harvard physicists
Sidney Coleman and Sheldon Glashow:

Cosmic Ray and Neutrino Tests of Special Relativity
Authors: Sidney Coleman, Sheldon L. Glashow
Comments: 7 pages, harvmac, 2nd revision discusses recent indications
of anisotropy of photons propagating over cosmological distances and
is otherwise clarified. Report-no: HUTP-97/A008
Journal-ref: Phys.Lett. B405 (1997) 249-252
Searches for anisotropies due to Earth's motion relative to a
preferred frame --- modern versions of the Michelson-Morley
experiment
---
provide precise verifications of special relativity. We describe
other
tests, independent of this motion, that are or can become even more
sensitive. The existence of high-energy cosmic rays places strong
constraints on Lorentz non-invariance. Furthermore, if the maximum
attainable speed of a particle depends on its identity, then
neutrinos, even if massless, may exhibit flavor oscillations.
Velocity
differences far smaller than any previously probed can produce
characteristic
effects at accelerators and solar neutrino experiments.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/9703240

Sheldon Glashow is well known for his Nobel prize for the early
development of quantum chromodynamics(QCD) and quantum
electrodynamics
(QED). The number of physicists currently active who know as much
about high-energy physics as Glashow can probably be counted on one
hand.
Since he has written several articles suggesting that superluminal
speeds may explain certain experimental anomalies I take it this is
not mere speculation for him, but rather he considers it to be a real
possibility.
Some articles discussing the fact that the constancy of the one-way
speed of light is a convention are:

Conventionality of Simultaneity
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-convensimul/

The Speed of Light - A Limit on Principle?
http://home.sunrise.ch/schatzer/space-time.html

Relativizing Relativity
http://tph.tuwien.ac.at/~svozil/publ/relrel.htm

Two papers by Winnie develop in detail a theory of relativity with a
varying speed of light:

Winnie, J. 1970a. "Special Relativity Without One-Way Velocity
Assumptions: Part I," Philosophy of Science 37, 81-99.
Winnie, J. 1970b. "Special Relativity Without One-Way Velocity
Assumptions: Part II," Philosophy of Science 37, 223-238.
_______________________________________________
"In order for a scientific revolution to occur,
most scientists have to be wrong"
-- Bob Clark
_______________________________________________
*********************************************************
Also, in my opinion, the mathematics and the experiments of modern
physics both suggest that Lorentz invariance should be regarded as an
approximation at sufficiently high energies. Below is an argument I
gave for this on the Slashdot.com site:
Re:Implications to relativity of the new measureme (Score:2,
Interesting)
by rgclark on Sunday February 11, @03:26AM EST (#14)
..
A key point is philosophical/heuristic:
Is it reasonable that an equation of physics should be considered
to
be *exactly* true for the entire future of physics? Since we are not
at the stage of having a final theory I don't think that is likely.
However, note that the key idea that reaching and exceeding the speed
of light would require infinite energy is based on the idea that the
Lorentz transformation is *exactly* true, for if not you don't get
the
infinity by having a zero in the denominator.
One might argue that in the future Lorentz invariance will be
replaced by a more accurate expression, but if it will not be
*exactly* true at that time, surely it is not *exactly* true now.
I repeated this argument recently also in sci.physics.relativity
and
received the response that the conservation of energy is a
counterexample to the idea that a physical equation should not be
considered to be exactly true. However, remarkably, even conservation
of energy is dependent on Einstein's transformation equations, so
that
deviations from these will also have an effect on how we interpret
the
conservation of energy. This is discussed in one of the papers that
discuss violations of Lorentz invariance. I'll give you a reference
if
you like. The possibility that conservation of energy might also be
violated is probably even a more jarring idea than that of violations
of Lorentz invariance.
The mathematical reasons for doubting exact Lorentz invariance *for
real physical bodies* are these:
The equations of both quantum field theory and general relativity
have
been found to be analogous to those of fluid mechanics. In fluid
mechanics we also have the fact that for the approximate linear PDEs
describing the fluid, exceeding the wave speed of the underlying
medium would result in an infinite pressure. Naively, one might
conclude no body can exceed the speed of sound in a medium. But of
course mathematicians and engineers know these equations are
approximations. These linear PDEs need to be replaced by the more
accurate nonlinear PDE's that describe the fluid in transonic and
supersonic situations.
One might take this to be just a coincidence that the most advanced
equations of modern physics, quantum field theory and general
relativity, both describe the vacuum with equations that are
analogous
to those of a material medium. But the predictions of those theories
are also what one would expect for a medium. In quantum
electrodynamics and quantum field theory in general we have the fact
that you must make mass and charge renormalizations to describe the
reactions of subatomic particles very close to the intense field of
the nucleus.
The key fact about this in regard to this discussion is this: if
Lorentz invariance is to be true, then *every* aspect of its
predictions must hold, not just simply time transformations as
measured by decay rates. If the *intrinisic* mass and charge have to
changed when moving at high speeds close to the nucleus, then that
signals Lorentz invariance is not holding in that situation. (Note
this is not the "relativistic mass" change, and of course for Lorentz
invariance to hold, charge must be invariant.)
One might say this is only true for subatomic particles close to
the
nucleus, but the equations of QED show in fact *this is true for a
field of any intensity*, the corrections are just extremely small.
This is discussed in papers describing how the speed of light is
altered in regions of strong electrical and magnetic fields, which in
itself is telling you that the vacuum has properties dependent on the
energy content in a region that effect the *intrinisic* properties of
bodies in that region.
When I had this discussion on sci.physics.relativity there was a
fundamentally important fact about this being overlooked: not only do
mass and charge renormalizations have to be made close to the
nucleus,
but THE DEVIATIONS IN MASS AND CHARGE GET WORSE AS THE SPEED OF THE
PARTICLE INCREASES. I can not overemphasize the importance of this
fact to the argument. As I said before the mass and charge
renomalizations are signals of the failure of Lorentz invariance in
these situations. That the deviations get worse with speed means the
deviation from Lorentz invariance gets worse with speed. This is
exactly what you would expect if it were true that this is analogous
to the situation of a body traveling through a material medium and
that given sufficient energy you can exceed the wave speed of the
medium.
As I said the mathematics of general relativity also suggests
Lorentz invariance should only be an approximation *for real physical
bodies*. In general relativity is it said Lorentz invariance holds
only "locally". This is defined to mean it only holds *at a point*,
or
equivalently it holds on a tangent plane. But in differential
geometry
on which GR is based, a property is said to hold locally, when it
holds *exactly* on a small region of the manifold. According to
differential geometry which is the mathematical theory deriving GR,
Lorentz invariance does not hold locally using the definition used in
that theory and in every field of mathematics that uses the concept
of
a manifold. In the primary reference work on GR _Gravitation_ by
Wheeler, Misner and Thorne it says explicitly that in real space with
curvature, containing real bodies inducing their own space-time
curvature Minkowski space can not be expected to exactly hold. To me
this is saying that Lorentz invariance does not hold exactly for real
physical bodies in real space with curvature.
In the debates on sci.physics.relativity I only gave a heuristic
reason that I think can probably be made rigorous that the
fundamentally important fact that the deviations from Lorentz
invariance get worse as the speed of the body increases also holds in
general relativity: the fact that the effective "force" a body feels
becomes greater as the speed of the body increases (this is discussed
in the FAQ for the sci.physics.relativity group.) This suggests that
the *intrinsic* mass of the body is increasing with speed. (Again
this
is not the "relativistic mass" correction.) However, I found an
article in the American Journal of Physics that says this explicitly:

American Journal of Physics -- July 1985 -- Volume 53, Issue 7, pp.
661-663
Measuring the active gravitational mass of a moving object.
D. W. Olson and R. C. Guarino
Department of Physics, Southwest Texas State University, San Marcos,
Texas 78666
If a heavy object with rest mass M moves past you with a velocity
comparable to the speed of light, you will be attracted
gravitationally towards its path as though it had an increased mass.
If the relativistic increase in active gravitational mass is measured
by the transverse (and longitudinal) velocities which such a moving
mass induces in test particles initially at rest near its path, then
we find, with this definition, that Mrel=gamma(1+beta^2)M. Therefore,
in the ultrarelativistic limit, the active gravitational mass of a
moving body, measured in this way, is not gammaM but is approximately
2gammaM.

Note this "effective" mass of the body in a gravitational field is
again not the simple "relativistic mass". To me this is again
signaling that Lorentz invariance is only an approximation for real
physical bodies.
Another article in AJP that appears to be saying this is by Steve
Carlip:

American Journal of Physics -- May 1998 -- Volume 66, Issue 5, pp.
409-413
Kinetic energy and the equivalence principle.
S. Carlip
Department of Physics, University of California, Davis, California
95616
According to the general theory of relativity, kinetic energy
contributes to gravitational mass. Surprisingly, the observational
evidence for this prediction does not seem to be discussed in the
literature. I reanalyze existing experimental data to test the
equivalence principle for the kinetic energy of atomic electrons, and
show that fairly strong limits on possible violations can
be obtained. I discuss the relationship of this result to the
occasional claim that "light falls with twice the acceleration of
ordinary matter."

However, I'm only judging here by the abstract as I haven't had the
chance to read this article yet. I also hasten to add that Dr. Carlip
is a frequent contributor to the sci.physics.relativity group in
which
he argues against speeds surpassing the speed of light, so he would
probably be opposed to the idea that Lorentz invariance is only an
approximation.
These articles can be found by searching on AJP's site:
http://ojps.aip.org/ajp/
Note I am suggesting that high speeds and energy content in a
region
can effect what are regarded as intrinsic properties. This of course
implies these properties really are not intrinsic but are dependent
on
surrounding conditions. My view is that properties such as mass and
charge will be found to be tensors dependent on the mass/energy
distribution in their vicinity and indeed on that of the universe.
Bob Clark
*************************************************************************
______________________________________________________________________

[Androcles]

"Robert Clark" <rgrego...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f71e6131-657d-4de9...@q25g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...

| In some of the discussion about the recent measurements at CERN
| suggesting a superluminal speed of the neutrino, the question was
| raised about whether this means travel back in time.

I'd like the raise the question, "Does it mean the Easter Bunny really
does lay chocolate eggs?"
I'm sure the answer will be just as fucking stooopid as the question.

[Jerry]

On Oct 2, 8:27 am, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>  In some of the discussion about the recent measurements at CERN
> suggesting a superluminal speed of the neutrino, the question was
> raised about whether this means travel back in time. Some explanations
> about how this measurement could be true without causality violations
> involved things of the nature of traveling through wormholes or extra
> dimensions. However, in point of fact superluminal speeds are fully
> consistent with a classical physics explanation.
>  That explanation is that of a preferred frame. It is commonly thought
> that Einsteins special theory disproved the existence of a preferred
> frame. But actually what it provided was an explanation of
> experimentally observed effects such as time dilation that did not
> *require* a preferred frame. But the important thing that needs to be
> kept in mind is that if superluminal speeds are possible then that
> explanation is no longer viable. In that case then the preferred frame
> explanation is required to explain time dilation. In this case time
> time dilation and rates at which time passes are not relative but in
> fact are absolute with respect to that preferred frame.
>  I discussed this in this previous post to sci.physics.relativity
> copied below. This is from 10 years ago so some of the links to
> articles I referenced expired, but you can find them by searching on
> the articles titles.

Tachyons are allowed by SR, and it was quite fashionable a few
years ago to search for them. -IF- superluminal neutrinos pan out,
they could be be the long sought-after tachyons. If!!!

Jerry

[rotchm]

On Oct 2, 9:27 am, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>  In some of the discussion about the recent measurements at CERN
> suggesting a superluminal speed of the neutrino, the question was
> raised about whether this means travel back in time.

Superluminal (SL) effects are permitted in SR. These effects are
however, non-causal effects.
Examples are pulse reshaping/advancing, X-waves, rotating source/
lightspot, etc.

What is not permitted in SR is for subliminal matter to attain the
speed c (and thus cant cross over).
That does not mean that there are no particles (matter?) already SL.

All these possibilities do not mean "travel back in time" in the usual
(popular) sense. It means that the values on the clocks locating them
indicate lesser values than one would get if light were used; the
conventionality of the synch procedure permits this.

A modern problem to all this is the definitions of "object",
"particle", 'matter' and 'information'. New states of matter or light
such as standing waves, standing or slow light, pulse-reshaping etc
have "particle" properties and are thus difficult to classify or
difficult to experimentally distinguish them from the usual concept of
"particle" (matter). Thus sometimes we get that "matter" has traveled
SL when it was not really "matter" in the first place. For instance
see the debates and articles considering whether the tachyon is a
particle or not.

>  That explanation is that of a preferred frame.

LET as SR does permit SL effcts. In LET however, the explanation, in
my opinion, is simpler and has a dynamical ("physical") explanation
which is easier to accept/grasp.

> It is commonly thought
> that Einsteins special theory disproved the existence of a preferred
> frame.

Yes, unfortunately. Even Einstein got upset of this mis-
information. He even tried to remind people that his theory (SR) does
not disprove the ether (nor a preferred frame). Recall his statement:
"Remember ladies and gentlemen, we have not proven that the ether does
not exist. We merely have proven that we do not need it..."

[Robert Clark]

On Oct 2, 10:56 am, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 2, 9:27 am, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >  In some of the discussion about the recent measurements at CERN
> > suggesting a superluminal speed of the neutrino, the question was
> > raised about whether this means travel back in time.
>
> Superluminal (SL) effects are permitted in SR. These effects are
> however, non-causal effects.
> Examples are pulse reshaping/advancing, X-waves, rotating source/
> lightspot, etc.
>

I disagree. If superluminal neutrinos are detectable then they can be
used for communication in conflict with the relativity of simultaneity
principle of SR.
They would not be in conflict with absolute simultaneity and absolute
time.

Bob Clark

[rotchm]

On Oct 2, 11:34 am, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 2, 10:56 am, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 2, 9:27 am, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >  In some of the discussion about the recent measurements at CERN
> > > suggesting a superluminal speed of the neutrino, the question was
> > > raised about whether this means travel back in time.
>
> > Superluminal (SL) effects are permitted in SR. These effects are
> > however, non-causal effects.
> > Examples are pulse reshaping/advancing, X-waves, rotating source/
> > lightspot, etc.
>
>  I disagree.

Are you aware of the above-mentionned *effects*? Are you aware how SR
treats these 'simple' effects?

> If superluminal neutrinos are detectable

Are these SL neutrinos considered as "particles" or "mass"? Can not
these detected "things" be simply some kind of manifestation of a
pulse-advance and hence a non-causal effect? These questions are being
(to be) analysed in the near future and with extra experimental
analysis...

> then they can be
> used for communication

The above-mentioned effects, although SL, they cannot be used for SL
"communication".

>  They would not be in conflict with absolute simultaneity and absolute
> time.

Nor with SR (e-synch).
SR simply says that the value on the clock will be less (and
"negative"). This does not mean "back in time". The common conception
of the expression "back in time" and its true meaning differ. The
common/popular meaning is quite innacurate and misleading.

[Zanthius]

On Oct 2, 3:27 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>  In some of the discussion about the recent measurements at CERN
> suggesting a superluminal speed of the neutrino, the question was
> raised about whether this means travel back in time.

"A tachyonic antitelephone is a hypothetical device in theoretical
physics that could be used to send signals into one's own past. Such a
device was first contemplated by R. C. Tolman in 1917[1] in a
demonstration of how faster-than-light signals can lead to a paradox
of causality (also known as Tolman's paradox)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyonic_antitelephone

[hanson]

ED "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In some of the discussion about the recent measurements at CERN
> suggesting a superluminal speed of the neutrino, the question was
> raised about whether this means travel back in time. Some explanations
> about how this measurement could be true without causality violations
> involved things of the nature of traveling through wormholes or extra
> dimensions. However, in point of fact superluminal speeds are fully
> consistent with a classical physics explanation.
> That explanation is that of a preferred frame. It is commonly thought
> that Einsteins special theory disproved the existence of a preferred
> frame. But actually what it provided was an explanation of
> experimentally observed effects such as time dilation that did not
> *require* a preferred frame. But the important thing that needs to be
> kept in mind is that if superluminal speeds are possible then that
> explanation is no longer viable. In that case then the preferred frame
> explanation is required to explain time dilation. In this case time
> time dilation and rates at which time passes are not relative but in
> fact are absolute with respect to that preferred frame.
> I discussed this in this previous post to sci.physics.relativity
> copied below. This is from 10 years ago so some of the links to
> articles I referenced expired, but you can find them by searching on
> the articles titles.
>

Jerry wrote:
Tachyons are allowed by SR, and it was quite fashionable a few
years ago to search for them. -IF- superluminal neutrinos pan out,
they could be be the long sought-after tachyons. If!!!
>

hanson wrote:
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/Einstein-s-E-mc-2-comment>
not withstanding, your remarks have Albert's backing
for he also said:
>
||| AE|| the velocity of light in our [SR] theory plays the
||| AE|| part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity.
>
By <http://tinyurl.com/Einsteins-Thievery-n-Plagiari>
Einstein covered all the bases, didn't he... ahahaha...
>
But with equal justification one can also invoke
Einstein's QM nemesis & insist on the particle-wave
duality, and observe, conclude and postulate that
the neutrino's particle property hit the detector first
with ">c" (FTL) followed by its wave -front characteristic
that did arrive later exactly with "c".
>
It's a little bit like watching a supersonic impact event.
to which my parrot Andro chirped:
>
"You've pretty much got it, you never hear the bullet
that kills you, and never hear a faster than Mach 1
plane coming, you only hear it going."
>
Since "hearing is seeing" to Andro, everybody ought
to be happy now, n'est pas.... ahaha... ahahahanson

[Androcles]

"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:j6af6c$9vl$1...@dont-email.me...

I have never said whisky is wine or hearing is seeing.
Hearing and seeing are both observing, whisky and wine are both
alcoholic drinks, but my pet daft dancing troll cha-cha-hanson
is too drunk to know the difference. He even confuses "Jeery"
with "Jerry" the little sister of Tom the Minor Crank who gives
date rape advice to faggots unwary of the little balls between
its legs.
http://tinyurl.com/JeeryDateRape

"Yes, Tom taught me sankyo starting from all different situations:
standing, from chokes, held from the back, held in a half-nelson,
arms held down to the mat (rapist position), even starting from an
attempted pin (reversal techniques). Lots of times the technique
would begin with a sharp atemi. Tom let me strike him pretty darn
hard, just so I'd learn what was necessary for the technique to be
really effective. Even when he was padded, I laid him out a couple
of times. I didn't want to hit him so hard, but my brother said he'd
rather suffer a bit of pain than see me get hurt. Dealing with pain
is apparently a routine thing in aikido. If somebody doesn't apply
nikkyo to him exactly right, he won't be bothered, and he can just
step out and reverse the technique. He doesn't feel yonkyo pressure
points at all."

What a brave Tommy, letting Jeery strike him hard, suffering a bit of pain
so that she/he doesn't get hurt changing bed pans.

I remember thinking when I read that in 2005, "Who the fuck does this
jeering, Einstein worshipping, faggot think he's fooling?"

[hanson]

.... ahahahahaha.... AHAHAHAHAHA.... ahahahaha...
>
the limey-green parrot at hanson's feet, "Androcles"
<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics.September.2011> wrote:
-- "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:

Androcles, the parrot at my feet, chirped & wrote:

I have never said whisky is wine or hearing is seeing.
Hearing and seeing are both observing, whisky and wine

are both alcoholic drinks...
>
hanson wrote:
... listen Andro, my limey-green parrot at my feet:
I just made you a compliment by reposting your
chirping, but... ahahaha... but you are even too drunk
to know the difference between "hearing is seeing"
and "alcoholic drinks"... ahaha... AHAHAHAHA...

Androcles, the parrot at my feet, chirped & wrote:
>
"Jerry" the little sister of Tom the Minor Crank who gives
date rape advice to faggots unwary of the little balls between

its legs. --- <http://tinyurl.com/JeeryDateRape>:

"Yes, Tom taught me sankyo starting from all different situations:
standing, from chokes, held from the back, held in a half-nelson,
arms held down to the mat (rapist position), even starting from an
attempted pin (reversal techniques). Lots of times the technique
would begin with a sharp atemi. Tom let me strike him pretty darn
hard, just so I'd learn what was necessary for the technique to be
really effective. Even when he was padded, I laid him out a couple
of times. I didn't want to hit him so hard, but my brother said he'd
rather suffer a bit of pain than see me get hurt. Dealing with pain
is apparently a routine thing in aikido. If somebody doesn't apply
nikkyo to him exactly right, he won't be bothered, and he can just
step out and reverse the technique. He doesn't feel yonkyo pressure
points at all."
>
What a brave Tommy, letting Jeery strike him hard, suffering a bit
of pain so that she/he doesn't get hurt changing bed pans.
>
I remember thinking when I read that in 2005, "Who the fuck
does this jeering, Einstein worshipping, faggot think he's fooling?"
>

hanson wrote:
.... ahahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... Andro, why would you
want Jerry to change your bed pan?... Are you in that bad
a shape, Andro?... Pity... I hope that this is not a permanent
geriatric condition of yours. Thanks for the laughs, though,
ahahahaha... ahahahaha... ahahahanson

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---

[Androcles]

"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message

news:j6atuo$2fav$1...@adenine.netfront.net...

You didn't know he's a faux nurse varney in his hallucinations, huh?

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

ah, but light has no "particle property" ergo,
since Young destroyed Newton's "theory;"
this has nevver been gainsaid, unless & until
it is said that Einstien's coinage
-- note the particular analogy in etymology --
"means" that a quantum of light is "a" massless,
volumeless rock.

how can there be any such requirement
of the set-up for the photo-electricval effect?

de Broglie and di Rac both had some fuzzy idea
about this, and Dirac go the relativistic math part
of it.

thus quoth:

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

travel "in" time, is "travel" in one dimension, but
"travel takes time" in three spatial dimensions (or
eleven spatial diemsions iff stringtheoretical .-)

> The common conception
> of the expression "back in time" and its true meaning differ. The
> common/popular meaning is quite innacurate and misleading.

thus:

ah, but light has no "particle property" ergo,
since Young destroyed Newton's "theory;"

this has never been gainsaid, unless & until

it is said that Einstien's coinage
-- note the particular analogy in etymology --
"means" that a quantum of light is "a" massless,

volumeless, momentumless rock.

how can there be any such requirement

of the set-up for the photo-electricval effect,
naturally tuned to the emmission spectrum
of a plate of stuff?

de Broglie and di Rac both had some fuzzy ideas
about this, and Dirac got the relativistic math part

[Robert Clark]

Thanks for that.

Bob

[Robert Clark]

On Oct 2, 11:45 am, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 2, 11:34 am, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 2, 10:56 am, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 2, 9:27 am, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >  In some of the discussion about the recent measurements at CERN
> > > > suggesting a superluminal speed of the neutrino, the question was
> > > > raised about whether this means travel back in time.
>
> > > Superluminal (SL) effects are permitted in SR. These effects are
> > > however, non-causal effects.
> > > Examples are pulse reshaping/advancing, X-waves, rotating source/
> > > lightspot, etc.
>
> >  I disagree.
>
> Are you aware of the above-mentionned *effects*? Are you aware how SR
> treats these 'simple' effects?
>
> > If superluminal neutrinos are detectable
>
> Are these SL neutrinos considered as "particles" or "mass"? Can not
> these detected "things" be simply some kind of manifestation of a
> pulse-advance and hence a non-causal effect? These questions are being
> (to be) analysed in the near future and with extra experimental
> analysis...
>

I suppose this could be possible. Neutrinos though are usually
considered to be particles rather than waves. It might be possible to
regard them as waves under the quantum field interpretation.
It would have to be an exceptionally long precursor wave to extend
over hundreds of kilometers.


Bob Clark

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

if light is a shockwavefront,
there is no EPR paradox;
a "photon" is a quantum of light energy,
not a "massless rock."